If we are serious about prison reform then as activist we have to present society, the state and government two questions and provide what in our conclusions are correct responses to those questions and in the process of doing both we will subsequently expose, refute and repudiate the current conventional wisdom, underpinning the status quo of the justice system, law, and order and prison.
The two questions are:
- Who is to be imprisoned
- And for how long, sentence and terms
On the first question: who is to be imprisoned. The justice system as presently exist subjects all felony and misdemeanor convictions to possible and potential detention and confinement in a
prison We don't debate this.
On the second question: The how long or length of sentence along with the condition of and treatment of the prisoner and the accountability of the prison official constitute the primary focus of the reform movement and what reform activist have to present to society and confront the state and government as equal participant in the social contract and compact is the conventional wisdom of what is contemporary just as prison sentence is not and cannot be defended regardless of the initial suppositions used to articulate it.
Confronting The State and Government
So we begin with abolishing the death penalty of state and government murder. Let's establish this: The revenge supposition has no place in a justice system. The state or government doesn't exist as a surrogate actor of revenge under prosecutorial jurisprudence within the social contract or compact. Because if justice as state or governmental action is reduced to the revenge suppositions and motive then it can only be justified as speech between perpetrator and victim or family. Meaning if citizen A kills citizen B or kills multiple citizens then the speech of justice only rests with the surviving family or friend of the deceased. The state or government as collective speech of society cannot assume dispension of what is justice as we now have. State or government adjudication of death as result of an interaction between citizens has nothing to do with the intimacies, it's nuances between people. Instead, it limits itself specifically to the criminal code definition of the death circumstances of the victim, So for example citizen A killed citizen B and C because he/she was slighted which is a normal and real human state and expression. If citizen A uses the speech of killing Citizen Band C. Society through its prosecutorial jurisprudence cannot sanction citizen A for the speech of killing anymore than it can sanction a citizen for being repulsively and revulsively ugly. What society does with its prosecutorial jurisprudence is it determines whether citizen A's actions violated the criminal code's definition of the death circumstance.
I have tackled the revenge suppositions as distinct within the status quo justice system. Because when we brush aside the feeble intellectual-liberalism basis of the other justice system, law, and order and prison suppositionary presumptions what society falls back on, it's default logic is the fundamental human impulse and state revenge.
This work does not critique the correctness of revenge. What it does is state that the state or government cannot be a surrogate actor of revenge.
Secondly, we continue with life as sentence must be abolished. There is nothing in the objectivity of the human condition that can defend the colloquial suppositions exploited within prosecutorial jurisprudence for the imposition of life as sentence. Now if society, the state and government dare to indulge in a debate over this which will be nothing more than another idealistic exorcise, when what the human condition anticipates and expects is progress and it's intellectual-material correctness, we are more than able to confront its conservative reaction of whatever supposition dredged up by the tyranny and hypocrisies of the social contract and compact.
Thirdly the only debate to be had and it's correct state is what is a just sentence and term. Examining this we begin with what we recognize as the only correct analytical point which is what is a baseline of maturity of the citizen and the concurrent consciousness of the citizen's relationship within the social contract and compact. The operatives then are what are the citizen's obligations and to what extent is the relative accountability.
So, for example, this is what prosecutorial jurisprudence presents us within the contemporary social logic of social contract compact, a formulation and application of maturity which in the first place is an arbitrary exercise and social construct. So an 18-year-old citizen is mature to either be subjected to state or government murder of a life sentence or a 100-year sentence or some other imposition that literally makes a mockery of the sapient nature of human potential and enlightenment.
So the 18-year-old citizen is expected by prosecutorial jurisprudence and it's anticipation to not only have the concurrent consciousness of the citizen's relationship within the social contract and compact but also the obligations of relative accountability and the incorrectness of this existence enables the emergence of the cynical consequences on the social contract and compact. The social experience then becomes a tyrannical mechanism subjugating it's parts and "crime" becomes a self-fulling repetitive cycle. Thereby requiring new suppositionary-narratives akin to the convoluted logic of a Republican Gerrymandered district or better yet the realities of an Alice in Wonderland pocket watch toting rabbit efforts at concealing the defacto relationships within the social contract and compact that are above the law, accountable and extra-judicial and the courts tasked with resolving the resulting social antagonisms become nothing more than reinforcing forums of the Alice in Wonderland narrative.
We Change The Contemporary Sentencing Scheme
What prison reform advocacy has to declare is the contemporary sentencing scheme distorts the social contract and compact into a relative war on its parts.
Our work and purpose are not to beseech, implore, and plead reason with the prosecutorial jurisprudence status quo but to change it.
We are society, the state and government and if Abraham Lincoln contributed nothing to social progress and consciousness, he pulled back the curtain on the wizard a' la' Toto in Oz with his government is "of, by and for the people" so let's remember that we are also that which we are in opposition. Contrary to the beneficiaries of above the law, unaccountability and extra-judicial distortions, government is not the enemy, it's weaponization against its parts is and the sentencing scheme and its prison accountability is a prima facie indictment that prosecutorial jurisprudence status quo has weaponized government.
Society, the state and government has under the exegesis of the social contract and compact the logic of imprisonment, however and our contention is such imprisonment shall not exceed a flat year term irrespective of crime.
So now lets rally society for this. There are an estimated 113 million Americans who are intimately impacted by the justice system and the sentencing schemes or prosecutorial jurisprudence lets find them and organize them so we vote those of us who will change the justice system and its prosecutorial jurisprudence into legislative power.
This work is not the final word on prison reform, nor the beginning, what I do intend this work does is sharpen the focus on going on the offensive against the suppositions and intellectual-liberalism that for too damn long has held captive and monopolize the narrative of what is social accountability and who is subject to it and sentencing scheme as punishment.
I also intend that others pick up on what I have put forth and a robust debate emerge which the mainstream baffoons cannot ignore Lets get to work and organize.
William Thorpe, I'm detained in Solitary Confinement at the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
